Skip to Main Content
Table 2.
Impact on remittance: Full sample
Dependent variables
Transfer outd (1)Remittance receivedd (2)Two-way flow remittanced (3)
MPd×Post-2013d 0.0351*** 0.0682*** 0.0619*** 
 (3.9651) (5.5972) (5.0866) 
Adj. R2 0.19 0.17 0.18 
Observations 34,098 34,074 33,992 
HH.Controls Yes Yes Yes 
HH.FE Yes Yes Yes 
Municipality × year Yes Yes Yes 
Dependent variables
Transfer outd (1)Remittance receivedd (2)Two-way flow remittanced (3)
MPd×Post-2013d 0.0351*** 0.0682*** 0.0619*** 
 (3.9651) (5.5972) (5.0866) 
Adj. R2 0.19 0.17 0.18 
Observations 34,098 34,074 33,992 
HH.Controls Yes Yes Yes 
HH.FE Yes Yes Yes 
Municipality × year Yes Yes Yes 

Note:Reported are coefficients on the interaction term MPd×Post-2013d, and t-statistics are in parentheses. The average proportion of households transferred out, received, and had two-way remittances in the pre-MP period are 81 percent, 48 percent, and 43 percent, respectively. Regressions include time and household fixed effects, municipality × year dummies, as well as household control variables. As the space is limited here, coefficients on control variables are available upon request from the authors. The superscript “d” indicates a dummy variable.

***Statistically significant at the 1 percent level.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal